Al Michaels thinks two teams will be in L.A.

Posted by Mike Florio on June 15, 2011, 1:29 PM EDT

AP

Although nearly 50 percent of you think the NFL shouldn’t return to Los Angeles and fewer than 40 percent believe it should (if you want to try to move the needle, you can still vote), it’s inevitable in our view that the NFL will be back.

One fairly well-known L.A. resident believes that a new stadium will eventually host two teams.

NBC’s Al Michaels, who enjoys a corner view from the Mt. Rushmore of sports broadcasting, recently told the Los Angeles Times that, in time, a pair of franchises will call his home city home.

“There’s no question in my mind that if a stadium gets built, they’ll start with one team but get another team,” Michaels said. “The league may not come out and say this overtly, but where would you rather play a Super Bowl than Los Angeles? It’s a great sports town, it’s always been a great sports town. People denigrate it because people leave a Dodger game early. Does that mean you’re not a great sports fan?”

Making a two-team arrangement more likely is the increasing revenue pressure that franchises will experience after the next labor deal is completed. Eventually, teams that can’t generate the kind of money they need in order to be competitive will look to L.A. — or those teams will be sold to someone who realizes that the biggest return on the investment will come from moving to the nation’s second biggest market, which has more than enough people and businesses to sell all available non-premium seats, premium tickets, and luxury suites.

“What really bothers me is that when I see it written that L.A. won’t support professional football because everybody is off surfing,” Michaels said. “So let me get this straight: In Southern California there’s like 15 million people or something, and they’re all out surfing, on a Sunday? When they say you won’t have enough support, I say excuse me, so you can’t sell 75,000 tickets on a Sunday? Of course you can.”

Al is right. Even though it means that I’ll eventually have to take a long car, bus, or train ride across the country for the Super Bowl — or that I’ll have to drink a lot of Coke and even more rum and climb inside the belly of a steel monstrosity that looks ill-suited to float on water much less air.

Al Michaels is an old fool with bad hair plugs,…I dont care what he thinks about LA,…but Im sure thats where he gets his face lifts and hair plug treatments.

axltcu says:Jun 15, 2011 1:32 PM

Has no one learned anything from all the other times teams moved to/from LA?

hobartbaker says:Jun 15, 2011 1:37 PM

The residents not surfing on Sunday are watching River Plate play Boca Juniors on Desportes Futbol Associazone.

mikei2 says:Jun 15, 2011 1:45 PM

The League wants a Los Angeles team way more than the fans do. Maybe we’re not all surfing on Sundays, Al. But there’s too much to do in SoCal to pay big money to watch a bad team. A poorly run franchise that moves to LA for salvation is still a poorly run franchise. Bloom where you’re planted.

redsghost says:Jun 15, 2011 1:51 PM

Ummmm didn’t the LA Rams try it there and fail?
Ummmm didn’t the Raiders try it there and fail?
Ummmm didn’t the ______try it there and fail?

Some cities simply don’t want sports. The 2nd largest market and they don’t have TWO MLB teams like NY or Chicago?
Aren’t the Dodgers bleeding money right now?
Do they even have a Hockey team?
The 2nd largest market should approximate the market in NY. NY= TWO NFL teams, LA= None.
NY= TWO NHL teams, LA= None
NY= TWO MLB teams, LA= One
NY= One NBA team, LA= One NBA team.

LA appears as if they don’t want any sports teams or aren’t interested in sports. Perhaps they ARE too busy surfing, gangbanging, roller blading etc.
Isn’t that what the current CA. ad with Ex-Gov. Arnold says?

cwt123 says:Jun 15, 2011 1:53 PM

Nothing against L.A., but haven’t they had many teams throughout the years and all have left?

I’m no business major, but teams that are making big bucks don’t up and leave…….over and over.

Deb says:Jun 15, 2011 1:54 PM

Two teams … when they haven’t been able to hold one. I think that’s called New York envy.

Where would I rather have a Super Bowl than L.A.? Is that a trick question? Are you asking where I’d rather hang out for a few days?

Washington D.C.
New York, New York
New Orleans
Dallas (as long as I have a real seat at the game)
Pittsburgh
San Diego
Denver
Phoenix
San Francisco
Nashville
Boston
Seattle
Chicago
Atlanta
Tampa
Houston
Charlotte
Kansas City
St. Louis
Cleveland (haven’t been to the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame yet; Canton’s nearby)
Miami

I’d prefer a week in all those cities to L.A.

kevinfromphilly says:Jun 15, 2011 1:58 PM

Mr Michaels? There’s a Mr. George Santayana looking for you.

vdogg says:Jun 15, 2011 1:59 PM

I don’t think LA when someone asks me what a big sports town is…..Chicago and New York are the first two that come to mind….LA would be a nice place to see a SB but no one could get tickets because the entire acting community would soak those up just so they could get a little more face time on TMZ and mentioned on ESPN….

Hey redsghost. LA has the Kings in the NHL. Clippers and Lakers in NBA. Dodgers and Angels (Yes, they count.) in MLB. They’re a sports town. The previous NFL teams left because they couldn’t get a new stadium. Now somebody wants to build a stadium, and teams want to go back.

brazy44 says:Jun 15, 2011 2:11 PM

L.A. Angels & L.A. Dodgers
L.A. Clippers & L.A. Lakers

I live in Vegas and would gladly get season tickets if a team came to L.A., but only if there was tailgating.
They way they got that stadium set in downtown, you park in a stacked lot, like at the mall and then that’s it.
Who the hell wants to go to a football game you can’t tailgate at?
Not me.

Burritto says:Jun 15, 2011 2:15 PM

Q: People denigrate it because people leave a Dodger game early. Does that mean you’re not a great sports fan?

A: Yes.

That, and the fact that the city is colossal and still manages to bleed sports franchises.

theytukrjobs says:Jun 15, 2011 2:22 PM

LA only has one successful sports franchise, the Lakers. It is an awful market for professional sports franchises. They’ve had the NFL there many times and it never has worked out.

Minnesota isn’t a great sports state. But our NFL team is more successful than any of theirs were (in terms of long term). Our baseball team is doing much better than the Dodgers. Our hockey team is doing better financially than the Kings. All this despite not being a great sports state and despite having only a fraction of the number of people.

I mean, if they are a great sports city then who in god’s name are you comparing them to? Jacksonville? Omaha?

dontouchmyjunk says:Jun 15, 2011 2:23 PM

I am so sick and tired of people who don’t live here having some opinion about why NFL teams left Los Angeles. IT’S THE STADIUM, KNUCKLEHEADS! The two stadiums that exist in Los Angeles were designed and built when Woodrow Wilson was President! In both cases, the stadiums can’t accommodate modernization for various reasons. Without modern amenities, no team can survive financially. These stadiums were outdated in 197o, let alone the 1990’s or the present day!

Are there any football stadiums in the country that house an NFL team that was built in 1920? Why no, there isn’t. Soldier Field is the only one and it was completely rebuilt from the ground up a few short years ago. Only thing remaining are the columns, which now look ridiculously dwarfed by a spaceship. It didn’t work and Soldier Field is no longer an historic building, because it’s a 21st century building and has been properly decertified as a National Landmark.

If they build a modern stadium in Los Angeles proper, people will come and teams will prosper. Plain and simple.

axltcu says:Jun 15, 2011 2:30 PM

@*Legion*: The stadium issues that forced teams to move are directly derived from lack of fan support and crappy teams. LA won’t pay to upgrade a stadium if the team sucks.

The Raiders’ (Al Davis’) decision to leave LA was sparked by poor team performance and lack of fan support. The search for a better stadium was secondary and was used as an excuse to get out.

The Rams left LA for Anaheim after blackout rules were introduced because they couldn’t sell out any games.

The Rams then left Anaheim for St. Louis because the city wouldn’t help them with stadium issues because of a lack of success on the field and lack of fan interest. It wasn’t worth the city’s time and money to help a crappy team.

LA will bring a team in with a fancy new stadium but once it needs more money LA won’t give it to them unless there is fan interest and a winning team. A big gamble.

Anyways, I think it will work if it’s the Raiders or Chargers cause they already have strong fan bases in LA. I can’t see fans jumping on another team’s bandwagon especially if its the Jags or Vikes or any other team outside Cali. LA fans are fickle and fair weather. If a crappy team moves to LA it will fail.

Ah yes, CONGRATS, you win the daily Jacksonville Bashing Award. Ever lived in Jax? Better yet even visit Jax? Know anything about the Jaguars? Let me guess, no to all questions. Look I get it. I know most of you follow PFT and the national media and lean on their every word. But like them, you are clueless about Jax. and congrats on being the turd of the day.

@nat’lmedia…I’ve never been to Jacksonville, but is there another NFL franchise that put HUGE tarps over empty seats in their stadium to try and disguise empty seats? I mean, let’s face it, Jax may be a great place to call home, but even their owner (Weaver) has hinted on more than one occasion that the lack of fan support may result in another location for the Jags.

SpartaChris says:Jun 15, 2011 3:14 PM

Funny people don’t consider the Ducks an “LA” franchise when they play, quite literally, down the street from the Angels. Seriously, google map it. The Angels are on one side of the freeway, the Ducks on the other. If the Angels are an “LA” team, then so are the Ducks.

Just sayin…

fargovikesfan says:Jun 15, 2011 3:22 PM

It says alot about a city when a team moves out of town to go back and play in the same city and stadium that they left 13 years earlier. and that the area around the stadium in LA was so bad that they didn’t have Monday Night football home games because of safety concerns. Hell why don’t we move all 32 teams to LA?

cosanostra71 says:Jun 15, 2011 3:23 PM

axltcu says:
Jun 15, 2011 2:30 PM

Anyways, I think it will work if it’s the Raiders or Chargers cause they already have strong fan bases in LA.
——————————————————————————————————–

The OP obscured the real issue here, Michaels’ first comment was “if a stadium gets built,” then it makes sense to do a bunch of other crap. I agree with Michaels there; with a few billion dollars in light and grade-separated rail, the city could pull in sports fans from a 120 mile radius. And it ain’t like Angelenos (heck, everyone in So. Cal.) aren’t used to commuting!

But LA (the city government, possibly the taxpayers) doesn’t want to build a stadium.

Also, you have to have been in the LA Coliseum to understand what a horrible venue it is. Even for Olympic track and field, the views up high are horrible, and the closer you get to the track the worse the views are. Atlanta’s Olympic stadium had better views from every seat in the place. And the Coliseum is even worse for football.

nationalmediacansuckit says:Jun 15, 2011 3:29 PM

@gorilladunk

No disrespect sir, but you are the people that I’m talking about. Everbank Feild and the Jaguars aren’t trying to disguise anything. This stadim without the tarps has a capacity of over 80K seats. Name one other stadium in the league that has a capacity of over 80K. I believe the Redskins and now the new Cowboys stadium.

At first when the Jags were new and fresh yes that capacity was filled. We were winning the AFC Central title year after year and it was all good. But in 2000 when the team started falling off interest did go down some and the Jags realized that this stadium was way too big for a small-medium market team. So the tarps were applied to bring the stadium from 80,000+ to
67, 164 right on par with other small-medium markets. By the way it’s already been reported other teams will be using tarps this season b/c lack of ticket sells.

To your other point about fans lack of interest. Yes that was true in the 2009 season when Jax was hit hard by the economic downturn and 17K fans cancelled their season tickets in that off-season. People we losing jobs left and right in Jax they had to cancel their season tickets, which in turn made the 2009 season full of blackouts. We are recovering though and if you didn’t notice last season we had ZERO blackouts. See the media doesn’t know this and even if they do they will never report this b/c of the hatred they and many of you on this site have for Jax. That’s ok though, we’ll be alright in Jax.

jsally430 says:Jun 15, 2011 3:34 PM

CALIFORNIA HAS MORE CHAMPIONSHIPS THAN ANY OTHER CITY IN THE WORLD.. THE WORLD… CHECK UR FACT CLOWNS…

How many professional sports teams does california have????

NFL

Chargers
Niners
Raiders

Mlb
Padres
Dodgers
Angles
Athletics
Giants

NBA
Lakers
Clippers
Warriors
Kings

NHL
Kings
Ducks
Sharks

With 15 pro sports teams you would think you would have more championships then any one Turd. And yes i would rather go to washington d.c then deal with your traffic and smog.

Why isn’t expansion ever talked about when it comes to football returning to LA? Why not charge the $800 million amount new LA owner “X” would be paying for the Jags or Rams, and have that money be shared by the existing owners and players to “grow the pie”?
Re-location is not good for the NFL.
This also is good for the players as there are whatever, 106 new full-time player positions created.
The expansion would automatically lead to bigger contracts with the networks and Directv. “Hey, you paid X for the last TV contract, now our league has two teams in the second largest market in the country, the rates went way up”. The playoffs could then be expanded also.

robatopia says:Jun 15, 2011 3:38 PM

“where would you rather play a Super Bowl than Los Angeles”…
Anywhere else, Al. When I lived in Pasadena, we did not like having the Super Bowl at the Rose Bowl. Now that I don’t live in LA, the idea of going to LA for a Super Bowl seems even less appealing. As both a long-time resident and a long-time non-resident, my emphatic response is “Anywhere else, Al.”

LA has rabid support for UCLA and USC football because so many local people attended those colleges. That’s where the football fan-money goes in that town. Those teams didn’t have a problem playing in the exact same stadium as the Rams and Raiders (UCLA also played in the Coliseum until 1981).

redsghost correction LA has two Baseball teams-dodgers and anahiem angels and two NBA teams clippers and lakers buddy sorry

tombrookshire says:Jun 15, 2011 3:45 PM

It is well known that those fans won’t support badly managed or struggling teams. They are frontrunners just like Cowboy fans. How many seats were empty when the Cowboys were horrible? A bunch. The Raiders and the Rams know all about the fair weather LA fan. The caveat here, whatever team lands in LA, the management must be ready to spend big to make it a perennial powerhouse of a football team, or the fans just won’t come. Michaels may be right that LA is not a bad sports town, but they are very selective about which pro teams they turn out for. A bad Lakers team is going to play to empty seats. Likewise the Dodgers and Angels. The NFL wants TV viewers for ratings numbers. Fans are really an afterthought. For football to make it there it must be a Superbowl level extravaganza every weekend, or they just won’t think just a football game has that much entertainment value. Beautiful weather and a spoiled brat entitlement culture will do that.

rolandsloan says:Jun 15, 2011 3:46 PM

Howard Cosell says that “it’s with great truculence that the NFL and powers in the Los Angeles area will swoop down upon the less than
elite teams to nest them in a potential new lair in the city of Angels….”

cosanostra71 says:Jun 15, 2011 3:46 PM

Deb says:
Jun 15, 2011 1:54 PM

Where would I rather have a Super Bowl than L.A.? Is that a trick question? Are you asking where I’d rather hang out for a few days?

Cleveland
——————————————————————————————————–

is that a joke?

arshi says:Jun 15, 2011 3:52 PM

the ignorance in this thread is mind numbing

cosanostra71 says:Jun 15, 2011 4:02 PM

tombrookshire says:
Jun 15, 2011 3:45 PM

A bad Lakers team is going to play to empty seats.
——————————————————————————————————–

last time the Lakers had a losing season, they averaged 97.5% capacity at Staples, 120% capacity on the road. Look it up: 2004-2005.

They can’t sell 75k tickets for every home game. Nobody wants to pay 50 – 1oo dollars for a ticket in the upper level anymore when you can spend alot less and enjoy the game on TV. They need to make the LA stadium 45 -50,000 seats.
Its going to happen either by a team moving or expansion. The league keeps floating these stories/interviews into the media by people connected to the league ,so when it does happen it will almost soften the blow.

deathspiralx says:Jun 15, 2011 4:42 PM

Al’s comments are pretty unimpressive…

LA has some great sports fans, but it is not a great sports town.
* If LA was the NFL football mecca that Al is alluding to, then the rams, raiders, or some other team would be there .
* BTW, LA wasn’t selling out Raider games THE YEAR AFTER they won the superbowl.

The point is LA doesn’t miss or need the NFL.
* LA is not held hostage by a “must have” desire for a team and throwing of money for a public funding stadium. (Good for them.)
* The NFL needs LA more than LA needs the NFL. Although, I question this, given that the NFL has masterfully used LA as a stalking horse to get other cities to public fund staduiums.

redsghost says:Jun 15, 2011 4:43 PM

Dudebrosday-
My bad on the Kings, forgot completely about them. But still NY has two NHL teams.
And c’mon, they really can’t claim the Angels as an LA team even though it’s in their name. What’s their exact title- the LA Angels of Anaheim or something like that?

BUT, I will give up and concede this arguement with your added info of the Kings, and Clippers (personally, I never knew they played in the Staples Center with the Lakers there already. I thought they played in San Diego or somewhere around there).
Perhaps the producers of that California Marketing theme ad needed to include this?

All the league is looking at is raw population numbers because they want the TV contract money. They are not looking at the fact that L.A. would NEVER support two NFL teams for the long-term.

It just isnt going to happen no matter how much they try.

Deb says:Jun 15, 2011 5:01 PM

@cosanostra71 …

No, it wasn’t a joke. I put the reasoning for Cleveland right beside the entry. Haven’t been to the Rock ‘n ‘ Roll Hall of Fame or the Pro Football Hall of Fame and would love to spend a couple of days at both. Cleveland is the place to go for those excursions.

@p4hbiz …

What I was talking about was NFL cities I’d rather hang out in than Los Angeles. And as I said, I’d like to visit the rock and football halls of fame in and near Cleveland. New Orleans is a great city, a soulful city, and the French Quarter is intact. Washington D.C. is my favorite U.S. city–are you kidding? I’m a Steelers fan and would love spending a week with the Yinzers. West Virginia is nearby–mountains, hiking.

Look, I’m a native Fla. girl. I’ve got all the sun and beaches I could want with a fraction of your traffic. Disney World, Universal, and Sea World are nearby. I can’t think of anything L.A. has to offer in terms of local color that can compete with some of these other cities. Sorry.

cliverush says:Jun 15, 2011 5:02 PM

When the Kings first started in LA they did not draw fans. The owner, (Jack Kent Cooke)? said he brought a hockey team to LA because there were 400,000 transplants from Canada. “What I did not know was they hated hockey and left the North to get away from it.” [paraphrased]

watermelon1 – Baltimore?? Have you seen the “Wire” I wouldn’t be caught in baltimore even if Jesus was playing in the SB..

Baltimore is a Dump.. Along with Philadelphia & Detroit.. How do those ppl survive, I don’t know!

Yeah we have Smog, but that kind of crime you can keep..

tombrookshire says:Jun 15, 2011 5:22 PM

@cosanostra71 – You’re saying I’m all wrong because of one season? I’ll spot you the 2004 Lakers season, OK? The Raiders and Rams were practically run out of town because they sucked. You could hear echoes bouncing around the stadium on Sunday afternoon, and that was during home games. How did the Clippers do attendance-wise this year, dude? Dodgers are struggling at the gate because of a divorce aren’t they? Angels win, so they get a fairly good attendance.

LA didn’t work for the Rams because a) A clueless woman was the owner near the end and b) the city wouldn’t build a new stadium because at the time there were 3 that already existed. The Rams wanted their own that wasn’t the Coliseum (it was too hard to sell out a 100K stadium and avoid a blackout). LA didn’t work for the Raiders because of a) Al Davis and b) the city wouldn’t pay for a stadium.

Just because it didn’t work decade(s) ago doesn’t mean anything now. The NFL is as popular as it has ever been and is a money machine, what do you think the biggest issue of this lockout is? Now there is a company (AEG) that is willing to build a new stadium that will have a capacity on the low side that will probably make a blackout impossible. The city will not have to build a stadium, will probably cash in, as will the NFL. Obviously USC and UCLA will still dominate Saturdays, but then you realize there are 16 Million other people (counting illegals probably 21 Million) who will want to watch an LA team play on Sunday. Los Angeles isn’t a sports town, it’s more of a sports “sprawled out densely populated area”.

No, L.A. is not the ultimate place to have a Super Bowl, it is just not that great of a party destination, unless your party is at Disneyland. People would rather go to a Superbowl and get to party before and after the game in Miami Beach, or the French Quarter of New Orleans, or perhaps if they built a stadium there, on the Las Vegas Strip. L.A. is a metro area with a lot of office buildings, a few tourist gimmicks, and cold water at the beach.

Don’t get me wrong, L.A. has the big dollars and big popular to support 1-2 teams, but it does not have much culture or fan character where anyone from outside of L.A. would be in any rush to see a game there or admire their fans merely for being rich.

watermelon1: “They can’t sell 75k tickets for every home game. Nobody wants to pay 50 – 1oo dollars for a ticket in the upper level anymore when you can spend alot less and enjoy the game on TV. They need to make the LA stadium 45 -50,000 seats.”

I tend to agree. Look at Chicago – third-largest TV market in the US, but the smallest stadium in the NFL today in terms of regular seating (just over 61K IIRC). The advantage to this is that the Bears can sell the place out in their sleep, thereby avoiding TV blackouts. Of course, less regular seating also means more room for (non-shared-revenue) luxury suites and such.

Agree with the poster’s comment about the NFL consistently using LA as a stalking horse to strong-arm other communities into building lavish stadiums for rich owners. (Although I wouldn’t be opposed to that if it came with a community ownership position somewhat similar to Green Bay’s) But, given that LA is such a huge TV market which has considerable impact on the all-important Nielson Ratings, I doubt the NFL is inclined or eager to risk blacking it out.

cosanostra71 says:Jun 15, 2011 7:12 PM

tombrookshire says:
Jun 15, 2011 5:22 PM
@cosanostra71 – You’re saying I’m all wrong because of one season? I’ll spot you the 2004 Lakers season, OK? The Raiders and Rams were practically run out of town because they sucked. You could hear echoes bouncing around the stadium on Sunday afternoon, and that was during home games. How did the Clippers do attendance-wise this year, dude? Dodgers are struggling at the gate because of a divorce aren’t they? Angels win, so they get a fairly good attendance
——————————————————————————————————–

The Raiders didn’t really want to leave town. In fact, Al Davis sued the NFL afterward for interfering in his stadium negotiations. The Rams left because Georgia Frontiere was hellbent on leaving- her move was voted down by NFL owners, but she used the federal courts to force the move against the NFL’s wish. The Rams mismanaged their way into financial trouble- they moved to a baseball specific stadium, they purposefully tanked a good 5 straight seasons, they used marketing campaigns that alienated fans…

The Clippers were actually in the top half of the NBA in attendance (by either the metric of total attendance, or capacity %), a fairly impressive mark considering they are a perennial losing team in a city that is entirely Lakers fans.

The Dodgers are “struggling” at the gate because the team is being mismanaged and because of security concerns. Even considering they are struggling with attendance, they are 9th in the league, and this will likely be the first year they won’t be in the top 5 in attendance since 2001, when they finished 8th.

If you want to extend it even further- the LA Galaxy have been in the top 3 of MLS attendance every year since the inaugural season of MLS, including leading the league in attendance 10+ seasons out of the 16 it has existed.

Please just admit you are ignorant on the issue- the NFL’s biggest trouble in LA is and always has been stadiums. Go back to the earlier post about them- the two NFL stadiums currently in LA were built when Woodrow Wilson was president. The LA Coliseum was dedicated as a memorial to fallen victims of WWI, which had concluded a mere 3 years earlier. It cost about $900,000 to build. Does that really sound like a viable NFL stadium to you? Assuming an NFL team sells out a stadium that seats 90,000+ people every game for a whole year (a feat that has never happened before mind you), they still wouldn’t be able to make money due to the lack of modern club seats and luxury boxes.

cosanostra71 says:Jun 15, 2011 7:16 PM

marcinhouston says:
Jun 15, 2011 6:49 PM

No, L.A. is not the ultimate place to have a Super Bowl, it is just not that great of a party destination, unless your party is at Disneyland. People would rather go to a Superbowl and get to party before and after the game in Miami Beach, or the French Quarter of New Orleans, or perhaps if they built a stadium there, on the Las Vegas Strip. L.A. is a metro area with a lot of office buildings, a few tourist gimmicks, and cold water at the beach.
——————————————————————————————————–

clearly you’ve never been to LA. The party scene is insane. Check out the clubs in Hollywood next time you’re in town if you don’t believe me.

cosanostra71 says:Jun 15, 2011 8:27 PM

^

I also forgot to mention great bar scenes in places like Redondo, Manhattan and Hermosa Beach…

dontouchmyjunk says:Jun 15, 2011 10:27 PM

Once again! NOBODY in Los Angeles considers Anaheim or Orange County to be part of LA. And people in Anaheim would punch you in the face if you said they were from Los Angeles.

Not only are they separated by a long drive on the freeway, but they two places are so culturally different that it’s like we’re different countries. Orange County is politically redder and more conservative than Alabama. Los Angeles is farther to the left than just about anywhere in America.

So PUHLEEZE, stop considering Anaheim the same as Los Angeles. It just isn’t so. Period! End of Story!

recon163 says:Jun 15, 2011 11:00 PM

@ cwt123:

“Nothing against L.A., but haven’t they had many teams throughout the years and all have left?”

Actually three teams. One left after 48 years in the city. The other left after 12. And one was an 1960 AFL team that struggled to draw against the Rams and left after one year.

Beyond that….let’s see….nope….pretty much everyone is still there and some are trying to get to LA. (See Sacto Kings or a yet to be named NFL team.)

“I’m no business major . . .”
That is a good thing. Starvation is such an ugly situation.

recon163 says:Jun 15, 2011 11:14 PM

@ marcinhouston:

“No, L.A. is not the ultimate place to have a Super Bowl, it is just not that great of a party destination . . ”

Hilarious. Yeah, no party scene here at all. Streets roll up at 9 pm.

The beauty of the internet is that everyone has a chance to just lay their ignorance out for all the world to see. And we all get to laugh at them. In this case that would be you.

recon163 says:Jun 15, 2011 11:16 PM

@ axltcu:

“Has no one learned anything from all the other times teams moved to/from LA?”

Yes. The NFL learned they could strong arm small towns to pay for stadiums.

recon163 says:Jun 15, 2011 11:23 PM

@ axltcu:

“The Raiders’ (Al Davis’) decision to leave LA was sparked by poor team performance and lack of fan support. The search for a better stadium was secondary and was used as an excuse to get out.”

Really? That is not what is a well documented fact via court testimony.

“The Rams left LA for Anaheim after blackout rules were introduced because they couldn’t sell out any games.”

You mean the blackout rules that were introduced in 1973? Did you read this on Wiki?

“The Rams then left Anaheim for St. Louis because the city wouldn’t help them with stadium issues”

“It wasn’t worth the city’s time and money to help a crappy team.”

Actually they figured out early on that the only one making money was Georgia.

“Anyways, I think it will work if it’s the Raiders or Chargers cause they already have strong fan bases in LA.”

Can you make up your mind? You wrote it wouldn’t work then you write it will. Think much?

I wonder if Al Michaels was including the vikings? Cause I don’t think anyone really considers them a real franchise.

recon163 says:Jun 15, 2011 11:32 PM

@ footballfan292:

“They are not looking at the fact that L.A. would NEVER support two NFL teams for the long-term. It just isnt going to happen no matter how much they try.”

I always find these comments hilarious.

Let me see……

NFL- Number one American sport. This happened due to very smart and shrewd business decisions made by very smart and shrewd business people. They have the number one marketing machine in the world of sports. They employ an army of marketing and entertainment business professionals who have a long track record of success. They study, analyze, and strategize multi-billion dollar deals as a regular course of their everyday job. They study, understand, and synthesize every aspect of their customer base better than anyone else.

You- Uh…….yeah……

I think if the NFL believes two teams will work in LA, they probably know much more than you do.

recon163 says:Jun 15, 2011 11:38 PM

@vdogg:

“LA would be a nice place to see a SB but no one could get tickets because the entire acting community would soak those up just so they could get a little more face time on TMZ and mentioned on ESPN….”

Don’t know if you noticed, but they do that now anyway.

recon163 says:Jun 15, 2011 11:58 PM

@ Deb:

“Two teams … when they haven’t been able to hold one. I think that’s called New York envy.”

You picked up your ‘Junior Psychologist’ kit at TRU I see.

“Where would I rather have a Super Bowl than L.A.? Is that a trick question? Are you asking where I’d rather hang out for a few days? I’d prefer a week in all those cities to L.A.”

And some people like to catch catfish with their hands. No accounting for taste.

I do like the rationale for Cleveland as a desire to visit the RnR Hall of Fame. People in LA just cruise the Sunset Strip to see the same and live.

goldsteel says:Jun 16, 2011 12:41 AM

Don’ t Bogart that joint, Al. More Goodell Speak? Los Angeles has already had two NFL teams, the Rams and the Raiders. Los Angeles is just not a football town. Besides California already has two NFL teams.

All this has to do with the perceived TV market in the region. Go ahead throw good money after bad.

goldsteel says:Jun 16, 2011 12:49 AM

cosanostra71 says: Jun 15, 2011 3:46 PM

Deb says:
Jun 15, 2011 1:54 PM

Where would I rather have a Super Bowl than L.A.? Is that a trick question? Are you asking where I’d rather hang out for a few days?

Cleveland
——————————————————————————————————–

is that a joke?

—————————————————-
Why does Deb have to explain her reasoning to any of you numb skulls? What is this, the He-Man Woman Haters Club?

Just look down. The joke is in your hand.

recon163 says:Jun 16, 2011 1:11 AM

@ goldsteel:

“Besides California already has two NFL teams.”

I do believe there are three in California.

“All this has to do with the perceived TV market in the region.”

Perceived? Neilsen makes millions on analyzing this ‘perception’ and they note there is over 5 million TV households in an area with 17 million people living it.

Who to believe? A guy who doesn’t know how many teams are in California or an organization that has millions riding on the accuracy of their data?

East coast people will continue to bash LA and west coast people will continue to defend LA, period! That’s basically what it comes down to. People love to judge what they don’t even know about. *shrug* Most of these harsh feelings have nada to do with football…

Deb says:Jun 16, 2011 10:42 AM

recon163 …

I’ve been stuck for several hours in your world-class airport. I’d have been more impressed if they could have gotten my plane in the air.

And if you’ve spotted Elvis, Jimi, and Janis while cruising the Sunset Strip, I’d suggest you visit Betty Ford.

Deb says:Jun 16, 2011 10:43 AM

@goldsteel …

Thank you!!!!

Deb says:Jun 16, 2011 11:58 AM

I’ll say one thing for L.A. After watching the news today, I’d rather Super Bowl there than in Vancouver and hope we have heard the last about NFL expansion into Canada.

ninerdynasty says:Jun 16, 2011 1:36 PM

ezdoesit209 says: Jun 16, 2011 9:24 AM

East coast people will continue to bash LA and west coast people will continue to defend LA, period! That’s basically what it comes down to. People love to judge what they don’t even know about. *shrug* Most of these harsh feelings have nada to do with football…
——————————————

I’m from the west coast and i do not like LA. The only reason why i would want LA to have an NFL team is so they can take the Raiders out of here.. i’ve had enough of that team and their dumb ghetto fans.

redsghost says:Jun 16, 2011 2:24 PM

econ163 says:Jun 15, 2011 11:32 PM

“They are not looking at the fact that L.A. would NEVER support two NFL teams for the long-term. It just isnt going to happen no matter how much they try.”

I always find these comments hilarious.

Let me see……

NFL- Number one American sport. This happened due to very smart and shrewd business decisions made by very smart and shrewd business people. They have the number one marketing machine in the world of sports. They employ an army of marketing and entertainment business professionals who have a long track record of success. They study, analyze, and strategize multi-billion dollar deals as a regular course of their everyday job. They study, understand, and synthesize every aspect of their customer base better than anyone else.

You- Uh…….yeah……

I think if the NFL believes two teams will work in LA, they probably know much more than you do.
\
\

You’d THINK that the NFL would know more than him, wouldn’t you? And yet, the NFL hasn’t shown they know more about the LA market than him.
The NFL had the money, resources, think tanks to study, analyze, and strategize multi-million dollar deals as a regular course of their everyday job. They study, understand, and synthesize every aspect of their customer base better than anyone else.
AND YET, THEY BLEW IT IN THE 70’S AND 80’S- TEAM CAME AND WENT IN LA.

The NFL had the money, resources, think tanks to study, analyze, and strategize multi-Billion dollar deals as a regular course of their everyday job. They study, understand, and synthesize every aspect of their customer base better than anyone else.
AND YET, THEY BLEW IT IN THE 90’S- TEAMS CAME AND WENT IN LA.

So, you’re saying that the NFL still has the money, resources, think tanks to study, analyze and strategize multi-Billion dollar deals in the 2000’s (what about the lost decade of 2000-2010?) and yet……….
WHAT INDICATES TO YOU THAT THEY ARE ANY SMARTER THAN THE 1960’S, 70’S, 80’S, AND 90’S? YOU DON’T THINK THAT THE MILLIONS IN THE 1960’S WASN’T EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANT AS THE BILLIONS IN THE 2000’S?
The NFL uses the LA market as a pawn and nothing else. No, the NFL doesn’t know all that much more than the average citizen, because the average citizen KNOWS LA isn’t for one nevermind two NFL teams.

Aw yes, our buddy p4hbiz is complaining about the safety in Baltimore because of “The Wire”. “The Wire”??? Really? Dude, it’s a f…ing TV show. It’s not a documentary. However, the Watts riots, now those were real. The riots after the Rodney King verdict, those were real. Where did those take place. Ever hear of a location called Compton? Exactly how would you get to Compton? Do you feel safe driving through Compton because I know I don’t. Come on dude, do you ever write anything worthwhile, because your rant here is just more garbage.

socalboy08 says:Jun 16, 2011 11:07 PM

redsghost you are an idot. La has two Nba teams and two hockey teams and two baseball teams…dumbass..

recon163 says:Jun 16, 2011 11:53 PM

@ Deb:

“I’ve been stuck for several hours in your world-class airport. I’d have been more impressed if they could have gotten my plane in the air.”

Oh well yes now I see your point. I mean the entire Los Angeles area should be ashamed it delayed your flight. After all it was entirely the fault of the 17 million people of the city of LA that weather, engine problems, missed connections, air crew waiting for a cancer patient or veteran returning from Iraq kept you in the terminal for three whole extra hours of your precious existance.

You are correct every single resource in the city should have been devoted to getting your shallow, ignorant, and self centered rump out of the city.

Hilarious. Your argument has devolved to “I got stuck there and they didn’t work hard enough to get me going.”

Hmmm a fascination with the 60’s and self centered? A self absorbed baby boomer I am guessing.

Anyway, had I been around in the 60’s, I am sure they would have been playing in any of the fine establishments up and down the strip. LA, where RnR history is made everyday.

recon163 says:Jun 17, 2011 12:11 AM

@ redsghost:

Gee that is lot of shouting to say nothing.

“AND YET, THEY BLEW IT IN THE 70′S AND 80′S- TEAM CAME AND WENT IN LA.”

Really who left in the 80’s? That would be nobody.

“AND YET, THEY BLEW IT IN THE 90′S- TEAMS CAME AND WENT IN LA.”

Really who came to LA in the 90’s? That would be nobody.

“WHAT INDICATES TO YOU THAT THEY ARE ANY SMARTER THAN THE 1960′S, 70′S, 80′S, AND 90′S? YOU DON’T THINK THAT THE MILLIONS IN THE 1960′S WASN’T EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANT AS THE BILLIONS IN THE 2000′S?”

Uh……I don’t know……how about growing the business into Americas’ number one sport generating over 12 billion dollars each year with franchises topping out at over a billion dollars each. It occurs to me that they have a proven track record of success whereas you don’t even know how many teams are in a city. You just are not that smart.

“The NFL uses the LA market as a pawn and nothing else. No, the NFL doesn’t know all that much more than the average citizen, because the average citizen KNOWS LA isn’t for one nevermind two NFL teams.”

And the average citizen knows this how? Do they have access to the financial records of the Rams or Raiders to prove they were failing? Of course not. So how can the average citizen know what will and will not work?

How could you know? You probably can’t even point out California on a map if I spotted you 38 states. You don’t even know what defines a failing franchise for the NFL much less know what it takes to make one successful. Let’s face it you and most of America are just not that smart.

Are you made because the collective brain power of the NFL is better than you? You shouldn’t be. Probably 75% of illiterate goat herders have more brain power than you.

recon163 says:Jun 17, 2011 12:25 AM

@ redsghost:

“Especially if you like Great gangs or Great slums/ghettos . . .”

Yes, I am sure Minneapolis or JVille has neither of these.

Does it hurt to be that stupid?

debthebusybody says:Jun 17, 2011 11:55 AM

Who’d want ti hang out in Pittsburgh?

YUCK!

Really? Pittsburgh?

redsghost says:Jun 17, 2011 11:55 AM

Recon- no, Jax doesn’t have ghettos or smog.

So, tell us, DOES it hurt to be THAT stupid?
Go to Sports Illustrated for Kids…the talent is closer to yours.

redsghost says:Jun 17, 2011 12:31 PM

@socalboy08 says:Jun 16, 2011 11:07 PM

redsghost you are an idot. La has two Nba teams and two hockey teams and two baseball teams…dumbass..

Huh…looks like folks from So. Cal can’t count OR read! Look hemorroid, repeat after me until you get the correct order. 1, 2, 3….1,2,3…1,2,3

Ok, now that you’re up to speed. ONE baseball team and ONE hockey team.
The Kings and the Dodgers. Or are you also trying to claim the San Jose Sharks? The Anaheim Ducks? The Detroit Redwings (not really sure how far YOU THINK the geographical territory of LA is), the NY Islanders?
ONE hockey team- The LA Kings.
ONE baseball team- the LA Dodgers. Or are you AGAIN trying to claim the San Diego Padres?, the Anaheim Angels? ( just to tip you over, the Anaheim Angels of LA is still an Anaheim team. Anaheim and LA ARE two different cities, right? It was the City of Anaheim that contributed to Angels Stadium NOT LA. The AP and So. Ca. locals refer to the team as the Anahiem Angels or simply the Angels), or are you trying to the Oakland A’s?
Again, because Ca. education system sucks, perhaps you didn’t know that LA’s geographical area DOESN’T spread out to all of California.

Now, as for your reading. When an astute reader (obviously NOT from So. Ca.) pointed out the Clippers and Kings yesterday. I deferred on the point and conceded. Yes, they have A hockey team. A baseball team. Two NBA teams. That’s it.
Now, stop acting like your Ex-Gov and start thinking with your big head. You’ll get further without having to explain your obvious lapses of judgement.

recon163 says:Jun 17, 2011 12:51 PM

@ redsghost:

“Recon- no, Jax doesn’t have ghettos or smog.”

I don’t think my posts stated that JVille had smog. But again you demonstrate your inability to read and comprehend. No, really with every post you expose more and more of your stupidity. Can’t get basic facts correct, can’t read a sentence, can’t formulate a cognizant argument, just par for you isn’t it?

BTW: I do believe JVille has a higher homicide rate than LA. I will need to check that when I get to a desktop.

“Go to Sports Illustrated for Kids…the talent is closer to yours.”

And obviously your preferred sports periodical. Not surprising as that is equal to or greater than your reading level.

Deb says:Jun 17, 2011 12:57 PM

@recon163 …

I gave my opinion–which I’m entitled to have, much as it pains some of you guys–that I could think of 20 or so cities where I’d rather spend a week than L.A. You ranted that I should prefer your city because of your world-class airport. I simply responded that my experience with your world-class airport wasn’t impressive.

You also ranted that I shouldn’t want to visit the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame because I could see live rock ‘n’ roll icons on the Sunset Strip. Apparently you don’t know that acts can’t be considered for the Hall of Fame until a quarter century after their first record is released. So most of the inductees are dead or a little old to be wandering the Sunset Strip. When I want to see current artists, I go to concerts (heard of those?); I don’t patrol the sidewalks like a groupie. People visit the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame because they respect the history of music. Unlike you, some of us recognize that significant events and personalities occurred outside our own lifetimes.

I don’t hear anyone complaining about how well the Dodgers, Angels and Lakers have drawn crowds over the past several years. An NFL team will draw well too, if the team is a winner and the stadium is a pleasant place to go (especially at night).

I think the biggest problem that the Rams and the Raiders had in LA was that they played in a decrepit old stadium in a bad neighborhood.

zmcgee8 says:Jun 18, 2011 1:03 AM

Jacksonville is a military city. Many of the military families are from other places so they are fans of other teams. Many of the military people that are Jag fans can’t always get tickets cuz they may be out somewhere defending our country (God Bless them all). There is definitely a fan presence but there’s also tons of haters in the 904 so….it happens. Isn’t San Diego close to losing the Chargers? That’s a Military town too isn’t it? But anyways Gene will build team teal up and hopefully the economy gets better so we can start fillin up those seats. Go Jags!

It seems to me that if the NFL wants a team in LA so bad then they should build it. Have all 32 teams, NFLPA and NFL Corp pitch in to have it built and share in the profit equally. Have no NFL team move to LA, instead make it the home of MNF or SNF. Super Bowl every 5th year or so. LA is a very diverse area with people from all over America and I’m sure that 75,000 plus each week would love to see their hometown/favorite team play. Jest 1 fans thought.

redsghost says:Jun 18, 2011 7:26 PM

Not a bad thought at all sir. If it not’s profitable, I’m sure they could tweak it.

seewise says:Jun 18, 2011 8:16 PM

what about this poor guy from SF, a paremedic to boot, and some LA Dodger fans literally gang bang him into a coma? that’s nice< oh buy the way he's still in a coma< LA traffic would suck now seven days a week instead of just six. Why isn't any one including the 49rs? there stadium is old and cool, but not earthquake ready.

recon163 says:Jun 19, 2011 2:28 PM

@Deb:

“You ranted that I should prefer your city because of your world-class airport. I simply responded that my experience with your world-class airport wasn’t impressive.”

I didn’t say anything about the airport, you did. You complained that you got stuck ay the airport, as if though it was very germane to the discussion about the city. It isn’t.

“You also ranted that I shouldn’t want to visit the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame because I could see live rock ‘n’ roll icons on the Sunset Strip.”

I never said you shouldn’t visit Cleveland at all. I simply pointed out that in LA you can see HoF and future HoF acts now and in club settings. You should read postings a bit more carefully.

“When I want to see current artists, I go to concerts (heard of those?); I don’t patrol the sidewalks like a groupie.”

No need to stroll sidewalks, they are playing in the many clubs in LA. Or staging concerts in many of our very great venues.

Don’t know if you noticed Deb, but a very large part of the music industry is based here. I know that pains you, because you don’t want to acknowledge that LA is superior to any city in any way, but the fact is that the musicians who you follow, attend their concerts, and buy their music …..well they live live, work, and play in LA.

LA is full of liberals who double down on failing programs. The NFL failed in LA. Twice. so lets put 2 teams in LA at the same time. i mean, why wouldn’t it work?

Deb says:Jun 19, 2011 9:34 PM

@recon163 …

Someone mentioned the airport–that’s why I brought it up. All I said is there are other cities where I’d rather spend a week–and that’s true. But let me make this easy: I like small blues clubs, cities where I can walk, and unique local flavor. If I went to L.A., I’d be looking for old Hollywood … that art deco, L.A. Confidential kind of vibe.

As for football, I’m vehemently opposed to the NFL expanding beyond 32 teams and don’t believe in ripping teams away from loyal fans. You won’t change my mind on that. It was wrong to move the Rams out of L.A. in the first place, and the league was insane to authorize expansion franchises in Jacksonville, Charlotte, and Houston ahead of L.A. The whole thing has been completely mishandled by the league, but don’t worry–the league will get you your franchise.

udontknowjaq says:Jun 20, 2011 12:39 AM

Lookin like.. LA. Bills.. proly switched to(LA ?) LA Raiders.. if 49rs get a new stadium I think they outta there in Oakland..

One thing that is not mentioned regarding LA and sports is that a huge proportion of the people that live there are from somewhere else. What that means is that when the Eagles visit, they’ll sell out because the stadium will be 1/2 full of LA fans, and the other 1/2 will be Eagle fans. The same goes for Cleveland visiting, Steelers, Giants, Redskins, etc. The stadium will be sold out most every game – just not necessarily to LA fans

jvibottomline says:Jun 21, 2011 12:47 PM

I am somebody from the Midwest that loves visiting LA and especially Dana Point/Orange County more so. I sit on the floor for Lakers games and it is one of the best gameday experiences there is. However, everyone likes to say how great the party scene is in LA, it is good, but not superior to other cities like they say. I’ve been to many and I will tell you that New York, San Francisco, Dallas, Minneapolis, and Indianapolis are as good if not better party/nightlife cities and Houston, Kansas City, and even Oakland are right there. The guy who said the Vikings have been more successful than the Raiders and Rams is a moron.

mogogo1 says:Jun 21, 2011 5:01 PM

Al, I love you as a commentator, but would it be too much to suggest we wait until a single team succeeds in LA before deciding they need two teams?

LA isnt a football town… its too Hollywood.and if they do they better have a dome, all those Botox injections would be spilling all over the turf.

franktherat96 says:Jun 23, 2011 7:25 AM

I have never understood the NFL’s facination with wanting to return to a city that has failed 3 times to keep an NFL Franchise. They have lost the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams. The comment will be made but it is the second biggest media market. Big deal..if they can’t support a team being the second biggest media market then they don’t deserve another chance. As for Al Michaels saying what better place to hold a Super Bowl. Al, I can name two places. New Orleans and Miami. Ask the NFL, they like both these places quite a big considering they have held the most Super Bowls total in NFL history. Go ahead and put another team in Los Angeles. In 10 years they will be struggling again and that team will be looking to move.

recon163 says:Jun 23, 2011 10:35 AM

@ franktherat96:

“I have never understood the NFL’s facination with wanting to return to a city that has failed 3 times to keep an NFL Franchise.”

So, by your own admission, you can’t understand, which indicates that you do not know, the reasons behind the moves of the Chargers, Rams, or Raiders from the Los Angeles market.

So wouldn’t a good starting point be to learn more about why the teams moved before deciding something is a failure?

As a start you should read the following books:
Sports, Jobs, and Taxes- Zimbalist and Noll
Glory for Sale- Morgan
Playing the Field- Euchner
Field of Schemes- deMause

Also read the testimony from “Raiders v. NFL”.

And understand the economics of the NFL and how revenues are generated for an owner.

And watch ‘Full Color Football’ to understand how the AFL was viewed in 1960 when the Chargers moved.

And only until you build the knowledge base from which to make a judgement on a topic, you are simply operating from ignorance.

redsghost says:Jun 23, 2011 1:53 PM

Agreed FranktheRat.
Chargers come….and then they go.
Rams come….and then they go.
Raiders come….and then they go.

Regardless of how the league was viewed in the 60’s- other smaller markets made the jump- LA did not even with a larger market, and yet, San Diego with a smaller market has kept them.

The Rams- 2nd chance LA. They had to leave because of NO support. Forget the “if they build it they will come” dream. Again, a smaller market was able to support them when the larger market could not.

The Raiders- 3rd chance LA. Moved from a smaller bad market to the 2nd largest market in the states. Again, NO support! Was SO bad that the Raiders moved BACK to the smaller, no support area that they came from!

Even other Professional leagues other than the NFL couldn’t make it in LA.
But, keep trying! Keep flushing good money after bad every three years. Hey, the market might’ve changed since 2002 (said in 2005). The market might’ve changed since 2005 (said in 2008). The market might’ve changed since 2008 (said in 2011).
You can’t simply keep trying every time you get a Yip in your cough.
They shown OVER and OVER that the small market outperform LA. It would appear as if the populace just doen’t want to support them- from the low attendance to the NO votes on supporting a new coliseum.
The population has spoken.

slegna02 says:Jun 24, 2011 3:28 PM

@redsghost

“Some cities simply don’t want sports. The 2nd largest market and they don’t have TWO MLB teams like NY or Chicago?
Aren’t the Dodgers bleeding money right now?
Do they even have a Hockey team?
The 2nd largest market should approximate the market in NY. NY= TWO NFL teams, LA= None.
NY= TWO NHL teams, LA= None
NY= TWO MLB teams, LA= One
NY= One NBA team, LA= One NBA team.”

LA appears as if they don’t want any sports teams or aren’t interested in sports. Perhaps they ARE too busy surfing, gangbanging, roller blading etc.
Isn’t that what the current CA. ad with Ex-Gov. Arnold says?”

“Again, because Ca. education system sucks, perhaps you didn’t know that LA’s geographical area DOESN’T spread out to all of California.”

To everyone else reading this, I’m sorry if I come off as snide, this guy is just pissing me off.

redsghost, I normally wouldn’t take the time to join a “discussion” like this, but as an ex-Californian and current New Yorker I’d just like to make sure everyone is aware that you’re an idiot. I’m not sure where you are from, but by your standards its education system has also failed.

You claim that NY has two NHL Teams and two NFL teams, but deny Los Angeles the right to claim the Angles and the Ducks as being in their region is either hypocritical or idiotic (or both).

By your reasoning (that the a team ACTUALLY must be within the city’s limits to claim association with that city) NY actually has 0 NFL teams and only 1 NHL team. Both the Giants and the Jets play in NEW JERSEY and last I checked NJ isn’t in NYC let alone NY state. Additionally, which is the second NHL team you are referring to? Do you mean the NY Islanders? I ask because the last time I drove past the Colosseum, it was still in Uniondale, NY (which by the way is in Nassau County on Long Island and NOT in NYC). NYC and Uniondale are two different cities*, right? To quote your earlier post, I’m “not really sure how far YOU THINK the geographical territory of [NYC] is[.]” Where do you draw the line? Perhaps you don’t know that NYC doesn’t spread out to the entire state, let alone a completely different state (NJ)?

*Actually, they aren’t. Uniondale is not a city; rather it is a village in the Town of Hempstead which is Nassau County. One thing is for sure though, it is NOT in NYC.

So lets try this again, using your own standards of course:

NFL:
NY: 0
LA: 0

NBA:
NY: 1 (Knicks)
LA: 2 (Clippers & Lakers)

MLB:
NY: 2 (NYY & NYM)
LA: 1 (LAD)

NHL:
NY: 1 (Rangers)
LA: 1 (Kings)

Now lets be honest, the fact that the Giants and Jets have their stadium in NJ doesn’t matter. They are the NY metropolitan area teams. The same is true of the LA/OC teams. There are Angel and Dodger fans in both counties. The same can be said of all of the other teams in LA/OC. Los Angeles and Orange County are a part of the same metropolitan area. Dodger Stadium and the Stapples center (home of the Kings, Lakers, and Clippers) are only 30 miles from Angels Stadium and the Honda Center (home of the Ducks). It’s not like LA is trying to claim San Diego or the Bay Area teams as their own.

While there is a HUGE cultural divide between LA/OC (and residents of neither county like to be associated with the other county), this is no different than the divided between NYC and NJ/Long Island (I’d argue that the divide between NYC and NJ/Long Island is even larger than LA/OC). Also, even though they do like like to associate with one another, people in OC freely admit that they are a part of LA metro area.

As far as the NFL in the LA area goes. It’s simple, when someone steps up to build a stadium the NFL will return to LA. LA could easily support 1 team and probably two teams. The problem is that any time the NFL has proposed to move a team back to LA, they’ve required private bonds and the residents just don’t care enough to pay to build a stadium.

The teams in the LA area are doing just fine. At the end of the 2010/11 seasons the Lakers finished at 8th in average attendance and Clippers finished 14th (still at 93.1% capacity mind you). Given how little the Clippers’ owner spends on players, he’s raking in the money. For the same season, the Kings finished 14th in average attendance (at 99.8% capacity) and the (admittedly not as popular as the other LA teams) Ducks finished 26th (at 85.8% capacity). Before you talk about how the Ducks are bleeding, I’d like to point out that the other NY team you were thinking of (the NY Islanders) finished 30th in attendance with only 67.9% capacity).

Notes: Even with someone being attacked in the parking lot and a substantial # of fans boycotting the Dodgers while the McCourts are remain owners, the Dodgers still have higher attendance than the Mets.
Also, even having played some mediocre baseball for the last 1 1/2 seasons, the Angels are still in the top 5 for average attendance.

Also, the 2010 #s are pretty in line with the rank by average attendance over the past decade: (Comparing NY teams to LA teams)

I wouldn’t say that having the area’s two teams finish in the top 5 in attendance for 7 out of the past 8 years bleeding money (the off year being 08 when LAA finished 6th).

The LA area has no problem showing up to games and supporting their local teams. They would welcome an NFL team with open arms, but they are NOT going to foot the bill for a stadium. The newest stadium, the Staples Center, was privately financed (not to mention home to 4 pro teams (including the WNBA)) and, especially given the recession, none of the cities in LA/OC are likely to pay for a new stadium.